Why not many 28-300L users?

Hello guys -

I am just wondering why not many people use the 28-300L? It has a massive range, but also is very expensive. What are peoples opinions on this lens (not that I'm buying one) Is it the speed? It's no slower than a 100-400

I think its the price, but also the weight and from what I hear it takes a long time to master. Its really a lens for only a select group of photographers. (not that I wouldn't take it and use it if someone gave one to me Please)

Its good at alot of focal lengths, but not great at any of them

as calicokat said, it's a jack of all trades, master of none...

i just think nobody tends to use all of 28-300mm, so they opt for something like (in a "budget" buy) a 17-40mm f4 and a 70-200mm f4 with a 50mm thrown in there. 28-300 with lower distortion sounds good compared to my 17-85, but i got the 70-200IS instead (and never looked back).

I saw a photo (I think in Macleans magazine) of a large group of photographers at a celebrity red carpet event. The vast majority of the Canon shooters were using the 28-300mm. Based on the description of the lens, it seems really versatile, while still maintaining quality.

It's the best "jack of all trades, master of none" lens around. It's pretty good at all lengths (as stated), but it has no great focal length. It is very versatile when you need one lens to cover a wide range of situations, but if you can carry two or 3 lenses, there are better choices.

At $2200 and 59 ounces... this is a heavy f/3.5-5.6L lens. Yes, it's got IS... and USM... but so does the EF 70~200mm f/2.8L IS USM at a mere 52 oz. and $1760

I guess is you are shooting outside... and have a lens sling... this might be useful... but, if it is being used indoors, with a 580EX flash... and hanging from your neck... we're talking stroke victim. The TAmROn AF28~300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di
equivalent (minus the IS) is only 14.8 oz and runs about $369.00.

Yeah, it has a limited audience... they all are body-builders and on the wrong end of the glass.

Let's face it... You could buy BOTH the TAmROn AF28~300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di and the Canon EF 70~200mm f/2.8 IS USM for less!

To go into full depth at the question as Why not many 28-300L users are around, because I believe that most people would rather buy the 100-400 L at a cheaper price then buy the 28-300. Because after all how many people are actually going to be doing portrait photography with a lens that needs a tripod? Not many I suspect.

There's thousands of 28-300 lens users (all those casual holiday snappers who really like the versatility and don't need to print anything beyone 3x5), but rather few Canon 28-300 L IS owners, because for pros, there are limited applications of a lens with a large zoom area but only 'average' sharpness at a hefty price and weight.

Most likely, there are few PJ's and celebrity chasers among the forum users (but they do exist and they do like this lens).

Best regards,
Andy

I ran into a guy who was using a 28-300L up the central california coast. Told me it was the only lens he owned and loved it. He was using a 5D with it

28mm wouldn't be all that great on my 30D anyway.

I ordered a copy of that lens and am at home awaiting the UPS truc as we speak. I shoot for a 4X4 magazine and hope it will work for me as I go out on the trail runs and I don't want to open my camera to change lenses and risk the dust getting in. and I could use the extra biceps it will build. I'm going to try it out this weekend and let you know how I like it. If not, I'll return it for the coveted 70-200 L 2.8 IS and keep my 28-135 IS2.8 and maybe a 17-55 2.8 IS L and a 100-400 L IS and spend the extra $$

IMO Price, weight and colour are the main reasons it doesn't sell that well compared to other lenses.

Most people start or have a 24-70/24-205 type lens and a natural progression is a 100-400 'ish lens .... not a 28-300 which on a 1.6 crop camera is not even as appealing as it is on a FF one.

It is unfair though to compare this lens with a Tamron 28-300 .... it is in a different league to this lens and one would hope so given the price difference. Equally unfair is to say it has only 'average' sharpness - it is a very good lens and should not be underestimated.

We have it and like it, but understand it's limitations. Performance / image quality is not, though, a weakness given it's range. As stated, IMO cost, weight, size and colour are the drawbacks - not overall performance.

I seen some pics from a local pro, the len is really not very sharp at any focal length, but newspaper dont really care too much.. I guess.. LOL! For quick snap shot, I think thats awesome Len.

The wife uses this lens professionally and none of the pictures are for the press. Our copy produces sharp good contrast images - either we have a very good one or the copy you saw images from was sub standard ..... it is not a 70-200 f2.8 but is still a good lens considering the range it covers.